Hi :) Yes, re-reading a document yourself is quite effective but if you made the mistake in the first place you are the least likely person to spot it. Another person, almost anyone is often better.
There is a similar problem, perhaps the same one in many ways, to do with translation software. Things like Babel fish or google-translate can give a good starting point but do create some hilariously bad errors. Take a phrase "out of sight, out of mind" meaning something like "if you can't see the problem then don't worry about it (yet)". Translate it and then translate it back and find it warped into something bizarre like "invisible idiot". Or try "Pull the other leg (it's got bells on)" presumably a reference to Morris Dancing and means something like "I think you are trying to fool me into believing something ridiculous for fun". Sometimes it is difficult to avoid odd phrases but even if writing is kept bland enough there can still be problems that are unclear until a translation is attempted. The line "Good English Grammar checker?" looks fairly appalling to me but it makes sense and is perfect for a subject-line as it gets straight to the point and is very informative. Subject-lines are often good when they are a bit like txtin language but less extreme (Xtrim?).# My grammar is often bad but at the moment she's in the kitchen making tea. Regards from Tom :) ________________________________ From: MR ZenWiz <mrzen...@gmail.com> To: users@libreoffice.org Sent: Sun, 23 January, 2011 3:43:36 Subject: Re: [libreoffice-users] Good English Grammar checker? Not sure which "you" you mean, but I have never seen a good grammar checker anywhere. Period. Way back in the stone age (of WordStar), there was a thing called GrammaTek that did a really bad job of grammar-checking, but things have progressed a little since then. Word's grammar checker is the best one I've seen although recently I've noticed that LO is flagging some grammar errors and flagging them for me. Some are intentional due to the way I write or a point I'm trying to make, but in general it makes me look at something that might be wrong. If you right-click a grammar-highlighted word or phrase, it should tell you what it thinks is wrong with it. However, grammar checkers don't catch misspelled words (spell checkers do that), they sometimes catch misapplied homonyms, which is not the same thing although it is or can be useful. Personally, I prefer a human proof-reader, even if it's me, because at least with English, grammar is too complex for most (not all) programs to do it justice, whereas I can usually spot a grammo while reading because they tend to jar my understanding enough to look twice. On Sat, Jan 22, 2011 at 6:39 PM, webmas...@krackedpress.com <webmas...@krackedpress.com> wrote: > > Are you telling us there is a Grammar Checker that will catch > more then a miss spelling ward or too? > -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/users/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity *** -- Unsubscribe instructions: E-mail to users+h...@libreoffice.org List archive: http://listarchives.libreoffice.org/www/users/ *** All posts to this list are publicly archived for eternity ***